On 24 May 2012, at 11:47, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Nevertheless... putting it this way the comparison of JSON-LD and RDFa,
>> ie, JSON and HTML, is compelling and good. Which actually also
>> reinforces the issue that came up yesterday on the call: after all, the
>> RDFa spec goes into quite some details, as you well know:-), on how the
>> RDFa content can be turned into RDF. That is an integral part of the
>> RDFa spec and that we were looking for in the case of JSON.
>
> Honestly, I didn't expect that such an editorial issue will cause so much
> discussion. The content is there, the round-tripping is to and from RDF is
> fully specified (and tested). We didn't want to submit the API spec yet as
> there are still some minor issues with it and we also wanted to make sure to
> have a number of interoperable implementations of the spec before publishing
> it.
>
Markus, all this is because you guys are maximalists... The document would be published as a FPWD; interoperable implementations and such are only required later in the process, although it is great if we already have it. Anyway, this seems to be moot, Manu is proposing to put both documents into the WG publication bin.
> That being said, would it help if we would extract the to/from RDF stuff
> from the API spec, rewrite according the RDF Concepts and publish that as a
> separate document? I'm saying as a separate document because we targeted
> JSON-LD to web developers without any RDF background.
>
As far as I am concerned, that works, too.
>
>> Which raises another point: would it be possible (certainly would be
>> great!) to have a JSON-LD Primer as a WG Note, eventually?
>
> Yes, we planned to write one..
>
Great!
Ivan
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
>